A Place to Talk About SRT Products including Q-Link

Posts Tagged ‘science’

Recognizing the growing public concern over the possible link between cell phone EMF emissions and brain disorders, the prestigious New York Times Magazine just released this Sunday’s extensive article entitled “Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer?”

An encyclopedic history of cellphone radiation research, the Times’ piece covers the particulars of several studies but also provides an informative discussion of cancer epidemiology and research methodology in general.

You may recognize the recent INTERPHONE study (covered in a recent blog here), but the article discusses many of the complexities and nuances involved in cancer research.

While the New York Times and other media stories report that no single study has yet definitively answered the title’s question, “Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer?”, they all point to one recent study (see links in our previous blog): the recent study by Nora Volkow, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that comes to this conclusion: cellphone radiation does affect brain function and brain metabolism.

Last month’s NIH study findings spurred responses from most top media outlets. These don’t include a lot of new information, but if you’re interested in a simple re-cap of the study, check out one or more of the links below.

Green American has a great interview with author, lecturer, renowned scientist Dr. Devra Davis. Dr. Davis discusses the history of cell phone EMF exposure research. She shares some unique insights into past studies and includes a lot of surprising stats and facts. If you’re at all interested in EMF research, head over to Green American.

The good news is that experimental studies show that good nutrition— literally exposing animals or cells to the natural hormone melatonin or vitamins A, E, or C before you expose them to radiofrequency radiation—may help repairdamage. So whatever you have done in the past, go forward with good cell phone practices, and good nutrition can help repair past damage.

In case you’re not aware, Interphone is the largest ever study of the correlation between cellphone use and tumors, both in terms of cost ($15+ million) and reach (13 countries). Since the study was released on May 18, there has been controversy over the results. Microwave News has updated coverage on this. From a recent post at MWN:

“The divisions within the Interphone project are coming out into the open. As the delay in releasing the final results approaches the three-year mark, the tensions within the study team are no longer much of a secret. It’s even becoming clearer who is in which camp —who believes that cell phones present a tumor risk and who thinks the phones are safe.”

The WSJ Numbers Guy gives a good overview of the controversy as it relates to the numbers. This seems to boil down to the data showing that for some levels of cellphone use, the risk of tumors actually decreases, as illustrated by the data represented by the graph below:
From WSJ,

“Even in this analysis, the risk doesn’t steadily increase with use, which is what epidemiologists typically look for—a discernible dose-response relationship. “It’s certainly less compelling than if you saw some kind of graded response,” says David A. Savitz, director of the Disease Prevention and Public Health Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York”

An Additional concern is that this study was published six years after its conclusion. It’s clear these results need much more analysis to reach a clearer consensus. But the fact that cellphone use has only grown in the past six years just makes this kind of research more important.

This may be a bit dated, but I thought it was a great example of resonance.

Using bone conduction technology (or what they call ‘Touched Echo’) the sounds of airplanes and explosions simulating the air raid that occurred on February 13, 1945 are transmitted from the metal rail through the visitor’s arms and directly into the inner ear.

The Blue OK, an online “Café” site, sort of like an online magazine, features discussions with notables in the wellness/green/optimal living community and covers topics related to living well (art, culture, health, green living, and food). They’ve recently featured Q-Link in two articles.

I highly recommend you check out these interviews and explore The Blue OK further; they have some very interesting interviews and articles (I particularly liked the underwater sculptures). They also have recipes!

I look forward to writing here on a regular basis and opening lines of communication with you the community. Please feel free to send your questions or topics for me to discuss, and I will do my best to respond.

I feel honored to be speaking with you. It has been my great fortune to have stumbled upon the technology behind Clarus products way back in 1979. But before I tell you that story, let me address some basic questions you may have.

Where did Clarus come from? What is the technology called SRT, and where did IT come from?

Clarus is Latin for clarity. In the earlier research of the technology we found that instead of adding anything to the subject (a person for example) it only clarified the pathways of innate communication within the already existing living system. So, that’s why we named the company Clarus. Clarity. Plus we liked the sound of it.

The technology really didn’t come from anywhere in the sense that we usually think of something being found or discovered somewhere and then put together with something else. The technology, in a way, is just the opposite. It’s a resonance that was always there either in its active or passive state and will always be there as long as there are “field – particle interactions”. Clarus only clarifies our “Sympathetic Resonance” (different than only clarifying the connections) takes it one step further.

Think of a grand piano. For you musicians, let’s say it’s a Steinway grand piano (one of the best). I have one downstairs. Right now, it’s sitting there, quiet. If I hadn’t of told you it’s downstairs, you wouldn’t know it exists, right? So, we say that all the sounds the piano can make right now are in their potential state. There are 88 keys on the piano, each with a specific vibration. Middle C vibrates at 261 times per second (261 Hz). If I were to go down there and play a C chord, then the potential energy changes to active or expressed energy. (Sometimes called kinetic). Now, if I were to push down the sustain peddle, and play the middle C on my flute, then the same note on the piano will begin to play even with out me touching any piano keys. This is a physical phenomenon called, sympathetic resonance.

So, your body has billions of vibrations or frequencies either being expressed or residing in their latent state. There are a group of frequencies that are fundamental to your body’s innate intelligence, governing the foundation of everything else you are. It is those frequencies that have always been there in you since you were first conceived. It is those frequencies that, for humans and animals, Sympathetic Resonance Technology strengthens and supports. Once the foundation is strengthened, then all the rest of you can be lived more fully.

Thank you all for reading this far. Let me know what you think and feel. When it comes right down to it, right now, it’s just you and me… two folks having a chat.

Glass shattering vocal coach Jaime Vendera is set to perform on the Dr. Oz show on Wednesday, 05/12/2010. Jaime is best known as the first documented singer in history to shatter a wineglass by voice alone. You may remember him from his appearance on Mythbusters. He is the author of eight books including Raise Your Voice and the creator of The Ultimate Vocal Workout. When not shattering glasses, he trains professional singers from bands such as Dream Theater and Thriving Ivory.

Jaime was asked to appear on Dr. Oz, along with Bill Nye the Science Guy to dispel the myth of whether a singer could shatter a glass by the power of voice alone. Dr. Oz is set to prove that a singer CAN shatter a wineglass with amplification. Did they succeed? Tune in to the Dr. Oz show this Wednesday 05/12/2010 to find out!